Section 793 of the Penal Code, subsection (f) is a problem for Hillary Clinton.It is very specific in defining the offenses
which meet the criteria for a violation and it appears that Ms Clinton
has potentially thousands of counts, perhaps tens or hundreds of
thousands, against her.Mark Levin read the subsection on air, which states, “Whoever, being
entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note or information relating to the national defense…” He notes this statute is a portion of the Espionage Act. Levin continued, “Subset one: ‘through gross negligence permits the
same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to
anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or
destroyed.’ Got that? I’ll get to the next section later. I’m hearing on
TV: ‘It depends on her intent, it depends on her intent.’ No it
doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).”He goes on, “Or two, ‘having knowledge that the same has been
illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to
anyone in violation of its trust or lost or stolen or abstracted’ and so
forth. So here’s her problem. Subsection one: “through gross negligence
permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody’” “The entire server was not supposed to be, it turns out it’s in her
barn,” says Levin. “She has a barn on her property. So any classified
information, including top-secret information, which is the highest of
the classified information, Code Black top-secret information.“But let me underscore this again. It really is in plain English.
Section 793, you can Google it yourself, of the Penal Code, Subsection
(f): ‘Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book’ and so forth and so on,
‘through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper
place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to
be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”Levin note that his point is made, when she set up an unsecured
server in her barn she was beyond negligent, she deliberately bypassed
the security protocols.He then makes the case allowing her the benefit of the doubt based
upon stupidity. He says, “Let’s say you didn’t think or didn’t know that
you were intentionally bypassing the process that is used to secure
that server and that information, which seems absurd to me, but let’s
play along. Okay, if you do it through gross negligence, you permit the
same to be removed from its proper place. So I would argue to you, when
that server was removed and information was flowing through it,
including classified and especially top-secret information, boom. You
did it.”He adds, “And every time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, that’s
considered a count. You don’t aggregate it all. Every time that
happened, that’s considered a violation of the statute. Now what’s the
penalty if you’re found guilty? ‘Shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.’”Levin notes, “I didn’t check the fine, but I’m sure it’s substantial.
Ten or 20 grand a violation. Now this is why typically the Justice
Department, through the Public Integrity Section or the U.S. attorney’s
office, would direct the FBI to get involved because of the potential
criminality of what took place regardless of who the person is.”

Rick Wells is a conservative
writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our
traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers.com .